CASE TITLE: GARUBA & ORS v. OMOREGIE (2025) LPELR-81463(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 19TH JUNE, 2025
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: LATEEF ADEBAYO GANIYU, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Land Law.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the Edo State High Court of Justice, delivered on the 28th of September, 2012, Coram E. F. IKPONMWEN J.
The Respondent here was the claimant before the trial Court, who, via his 5th further amended statement of claim, sought the following reliefs:
1. A DECLARATION that the plaintiff is the proper person entitled to apply and be granted a statutory right of occupancy over a portion of the late Pa. Omoregie’s estate, measuring approximately 1282.244 hectares, verged green on the survey plan No. JAA/ED/D17/03 is situated along Benin/Akure Road, in between Igbekhue and Osasimwunoba Village, Ovia North-East Local Government Area, Edo State.
2. PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants by themselves, their servants, agents or privies from entering the said plaintiff’s farm plantation situate at Igbekhue Village via Benin City Verged RED on survey plan No. JAA/ED/D17/03 for any purpose whatsoever.”
In their reaction to the Respondent’s claim before the trial Court, the 1st and 2nd Respondents who were the 1st and 2nd Defendants before the trial Court, filed their 1st and 2nd Defendants Further Statement of Defence, wherein they asserted that the trial Court should dismiss the Respondent’s claim before the trial Court. The 3rd Defendant who is the 3rd Appellant in this appeal filed his 3rd defendant’s 2nd Further Amended Statement of Defence in which he asserts that the Respondent is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.
During trial of the matter before the trial Court, the Respondents, called five witnesses while each of the 1st and 2nd Appellants and the 3rd Appellant called three (3) Witnesses.
At the end of the trial, the trial Court gave judgment in favour of the Respondents.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellants lodged the instant appeal before the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The appeal was determined on the following issues as distilled by the appellant:
1. Whether arising from the non-service of the motion on notice on the Defendants/Appellants seeking an extension of time to file and serve Plaintiff’s/ Respondent’s, 5th Amended Statement of Claim and the subsequent grant of the same by the trial Court has not stripped the trial Court of the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
2. Whether or not the Honourable trial Court carried out a proper evaluation of the evidence both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties to this appeal.
3. Whether or not the refusal of the trial Court to concede and grant the request of the Defendants for the trial Court to take the evidence of the Oba of Benin and visit the locus in quo has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
DECISION/HELD:
The Court held that the appeal lacked merit and was thereby dismissed.
Cost in the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (₦500,000.00) was awarded against the Appellant in favour of the Respondent.
RATIOS:
- ACTION- REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY: Whether member(s) of a community can sue to protect the legal right of a community in his individual capacity
- APPEAL- UNAPPEALED FINDING(S)/DECISION(S): Effect of failure to appeal against the finding(s) of a Court
- APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Duty of trial Court to evaluate evidence and make findings of fact; instance(s) in which an appellate Court will/will not interfere
- COURT- DUTY OF COURT: Duty of court not to make use of any information obtained outside the court
- COURT- COURT PROCEEDINGS: Circumstance(s) in which a Court can conduct its proceedings outside the Court room
- EVIDENCE- VISIT TO THE LOCUS IN QUO: Whether the grant of an application to visit the locus in quo is at the discretion of Court; purpose of visit to the locus in quo
- EVIDENCE- CALLING OF EVIDENCE: Whether the Court can move to the domain of any person for the purpose of taking his evidence
- LAND LAW- POSSESSION OF LAND: Whether a person in possession can maintain an action against anyone except a person having a better title to the land
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
